Catholic in Yanchep

Go out into the deep.


1 Comment

An Extraordinary Silence

Clouds_over_the_Atlantic_OceanReligious freedom is under threat in Australia.  Same-sex marriage became legal in Australia with the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 coming into effect on 9 December 2017.  It was notable for its minimal religious protections for individuals who are not members of the clergy or registered religious marriage celebrants.  I have written previously about the threats to religious freedom that have occurred elsewhere as a result of redefining marriage.

Prime Minister Turnbull kicked the Religious Freedom can down the road by appointing an ‘expert panel’, led by Philip Ruddock, ‘Special Envoy to the Prime Minister for Human Rights’, to discuss the concerns of those who wish to practise their faith without fear of prosecution for supposed ‘vilification’ or ‘discrimination’.  The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom has been accepting submissions from the general public, with the closing date being 14 February.  Don’t expect any help from the fact that Frank Brennan S.J. is on the expert panel: he who ran a ‘common good’ argument in favour of same-sex marriage.  The terms of reference are these:

OBJECTIVE
The Panel shall examine and report on whether Australian law (Commonwealth, State and Territory) adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion.
SCOPE
In undertaking this Review, the Panel should:

  • Consider the intersections between the enjoyment of the freedom of religion and other human rights.
  • Have regard to any previous or ongoing reviews or inquiries that it considers relevant.
  • Consult as widely as it considers necessary.

Many independent Christian and other concerned organisations have been hard at work, encouraging their members to write to the panel (examples here, here and here), so one would think, would one not, that in an area so fundamental to our faith, the Bishops and Archbishops of Australia would be jumping up an down to encourage and rouse up the faithful to get involved?  Wondering why I had not heard any special message about this during the announcements at Mass, I leapt onto the Archdiocesan website and searched for exhortations from the Archbishop for parishioners to participate in this national discussion.

What did I find?             … <crickets> …

Merely one piece by Josh Low, not even referencing the Archbishop, but rather Paul Monagle from the Australian Family Association.  Not only that, but The Record has not had a single editorial written since 2014.  One would ask, where is the editorial leadership, given that one of the main planks of the Archdiocesan Plan 2016-2021 is ‘effective communication’?  Hmmm.  When you are an Archbishop with a large army of willing helpers at your disposal, does the Holy Spirit not energise you to muster your troops to action?  If not, why not?  When Cardinal Sarah wrote about The Power of Silence, he didn’t mean this.

At any rate, I have uploaded my submission, and if you haven’t done yours yet, the link is here: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SUBMISSIONS.  Don’t delay.

 

 


1 Comment

Respecting the science: why a NO vote is not bigotry

Mother-and-child

Photo credit: Shutterstock/Liderina

This week, I would like to address the claim that Christians are bigoted towards people with same-sex attraction, somewhat in the same mould as people who thought interracial marriage was wrong in times past.  One of the comments I received on my Facebook page for last week’s article implied this:

Mike-Linney-Comment

Just for the record, Australia is somewhat different from the United States in that it has never had any laws prohibiting interracial marriage (sometimes called anti-miscegenation laws).  Moreover, the official teaching of the Catholic Church has consistently underlined our common humanity – that we are all made in God’s image and likeness.  Pope Paul III was quite clear on this to the colonisers of the New World:

The enemy of the human race [i.e. Satan], who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service … notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. 

Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei – On the Enslavement and Evangelisation of Indians, 29 May 1537.

In fact the Catholic Church has African and Asian saints aplenty, celebrated down through the ages (most of whom I have never heard of, as it happens).  These people are venerated for their wonderful example of faithfulness under trying circumstances, and we believe that they are part of the Church Triumphant – those of our church family that are already with Christ in heaven.  I merely mention this, because so many people seem to be under the impression that Catholicism equals bigotry.

I now want to talk about same-sex attraction and explain from a biological perspective why the accusation of bigotry does not apply in the same way it applies to race. Having grown up in South Africa under an apartheid regime, I am perfectly well aware of what racism does and how much work the Churches did to bring equality and reconciliation (except for the NGK which was a prominent supporter of apartheid and eventually expelled from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches for that reason).

Let’s say we take a racist person who thinks a male of African descent should not marry a woman of Anglo-Saxon descent.  The racist looks at the different physical features (known in genetics as the phenotype) of the African and the Anglo-Saxon and decides that they are sufficiently different to make the two people incompatible as marriage partners.  The Christian, on the other hand, looks at the African and the Anglo-Saxon as both being God’s children and therefore a perfectly acceptable match, all other things being equal.  The question is – is the racist correct about there being real differences between the two people?  Of course he is: and we can find the phenotypic differences reflected in the genetic makeup of the parties.  Every time someone has their DNA profiled in hopes of finding out their ancestral roots, they are relying on the presence of ancestry-informative markers.  These are single nucleotide polymorphisms – what biologists call SNPs (pronounce that snips), which are typical of certain populations.  SNPs are sites in genes where one may have different variations of a particular nucleotide without the changes necessarily affecting the phenotype – although sometimes they can.  For example, if a DNA profiler finds the SNP (FY*0) in a person’s DNA, this will usually mean that the Duffy antigen system (a membrane protein found on red blood cells) is non-functional – and this particular SNP is (barring novel mutations) 100% likely to show that the person is of African descent, either wholly or partially.  Indeed, the International HapMap Project has created a map of SNPs that can identify haplotypes (sets of SNPs) that can be used to determine geographical origin.

So we can safely conclude that race is not a figment of our imagination, or a human construct, but a phenotypic manifestation of an underlying genetic reality.

What about sexual orientation?  Is there any underlying genetic reality to the human phenomenon of same-sex attraction?

The answer is both yes and no.  Contrary to what popular culture and the ‘born this way’ slogans tell us, there is scant evidence that SSA is genetically determined.  However, there is some evidence that there are genetic predispository factors in play.  If homosexuality were genetically determined, then there would be 100% concordance between identical (monozygotic) twins; however, recent studies show only between 5.3 and 24% concordance (Bailey, Dunne and Martin, 2000, Bearman and Brückner, 2002); therefore environmental causes are a significant factor. Scientists like William Rice, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics at UCSB, have already confirmed that there is no ‘gay gene’.  Some scientists have also postulated that homosexual proclivities have been caused by epigenetic factors – chemical changes to DNA, usually involving DNA methylation.  These epigenetic marks are reversible and usually caused by environmental factors.  But so far, epigenetics studies on people with same-sex attraction are inconclusive and no clear link has been established.  Andrew Gelman, Professor of Statistics and Political Science at Columbia University, kept me amused with his discussion of the dodgy statistics, and his comments have been noted at the science magazine, Nature, which was initially too keen to jump on the epigenetic bandwagon.

One interesting observation that Science has produced, is that the Xq28 chromosome band  on the X chromosome and the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8 may have some effect in predisposing males (and not females) to same-sex attraction (Sanders, Marcham and Beecham, 2014).  But when we look at what these particular genes do, we find that Xq28 is associated with anxiety disorders, and the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8 is intriguingly associated with signalling in the nervous system.  A review of current research at Scientific American notes that:

… Twin studies additionally point to genetic explanations as the underlying force for same-sex partner preference in men and neuroticism, a personality trait that is comparable to anxiety.  The research points to childhood separation anxiety as a culturally universal correlate of androphilia in men. This has important implications for our understanding of children’s mental health conditions because subclinical levels of separation anxiety, when intertwined with male androphilia, may represent a typical part of the developmental life course.

(Scientific American, 25 April, 2017)

So there seems to be a connection between anxiety disorders, nervous signalling, childhood separation anxiety and male androphilia.

Which blends in nicely with my next point: the evidence from psychology.  Psychologists who work with male and female SSA people have found significant correlations between childhood separation anxiety, attachment issues with one or both parents, and same-sex attraction.

Dr Janelle Hallman, who specialises in counselling females with (usually unwanted) same-sex attraction, writes the following:

Over the years, I have observed several broad categories in terms of common historic and developmental themes within the lives of women with same-sex attraction: 

  • A strained, detached or missing bond and/or attachment with mother without an available mother substitute, resulting in a need for attachment;
  • The presence of sexual abuse or trauma typically at the hands of a male, or disillusionment and profound disappointment in relationships with males, resulting in a dismissal, fear or hatred of men;
  • Few if any girlhood/adolescent same-sex friendships, resulting in a need for acceptance and belonging;
  • Gender non-conforming skills and interests often combined with a sense of emptiness or identity moratorium [a crisis state] in lieu of a full and rich identity as a feminine person, resulting in a need for self/identity and gender identity. 

While the presence of these elements is not a direct predictor or determinant of female same-sex attraction, they are nevertheless the most common and frequently reported facets of a woman’s story. These elements are sequential in order of development or experience, boast of other associated common themes, and often predispose a girl or young woman to the next sequential element and are therefore interrelated. 

Within many of my clients is a deep deprivation of “motherly” love. Absent in their story is a sense of being nurtured and cared for by an attentive and sensitive mom. This does not mean that “mother” was not loving or offering the best to her daughter in terms of emotional support, it means that the girl was unable to take-in, receive or appropriate her mother’s loving intention. 

One of my clients was separated from her biological mother at birth and was unable to form a warm attachment with her adoptive mother. Many of my clients report that during the time of their birth or within the first two years of their lives, there was substantial stress, difficulty and chaos in their mothers’ lives due to moves, depression, alcoholic husbands, several other children, undue pressure from perfectionistic family members, mandatory adoption of additional children due to abandonment by or death of relatives, etc., all disallowing the mothers to enter into restful and nurturing moments with their young daughters. 

            It is also common to hear that a “pre-lesbian” girl was very “close” to her mother because mother “needed her” by depending on her to do the housework, care for and protect siblings, deal with an alcoholic father, be a confidant for mom, while mother hid her self away in bed most of the day. One daughter even had to call 911 whenever her mother was suicidal. This type of relationship is very deceiving in that it holds the appearance of closeness but in essence, totally lacks the actual nurturance and care that the little girl needed. 

            There may be no greater trauma in a girl’s life developmentally, than one that interferes with her primal relationship with mom.  Mom is not only the first bond and attachment for a little baby girl, but is also the relational object with whom this little girl will form her first sense of self and eventually rely on to complete her identification process as a female. If a little girl experiences disruption in this most primal and ideally ongoing essential relationship, it will not only create a need in her for the by-products of such a relationship, such as affection, touch, suckling, eye to eye gazing, etc., but will affect all future attachments as well as her developmental process of identity formation. 

(Janelle Hallman, Developmental, Relational and Emotional Etiology of Female Homosexuality, 2003)

Similarly, Dr Joseph Nicolosi, who works with same-sex attracted males, has some fascinating comments about the family dynamics between fathers and SSA sons.  Read it all at Fathers of Male Homosexuals, a collective clinical profile.

In my own observations with SSA people who are friends of mine, I have found the female family situations to have involved these factors: sexual abuse by close family members or neighbours, absent or deceased fathers, distant, alcoholic or drug-dependent mothers and even SSA women who have suffered from a generationally iterative attachment deficit due to a grandmother’s early death.  I’m not saying it’s necessarily the parent’s fault.  Sometimes, as Hallman notes, the child is ‘unable to take-in, receive or appropriate her mother’s loving intention’.  I have limited experience with male homosexuals, but one friend of mine, who is now ex-gay, lacked an affective relationship with his biological parents during the early stages of his development, as he was adopted out and lived in institutional care during his infancy before being taken into a loving foster home – and was then sexually abused during his teenage years by his male teachers.  Public homosexuals like Milo Yiannopoulos also draw attention to being sexually abused during the crucial adolescent years, the fifth stage of Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development.  We can see that, together with the effects of the Xq28 gene which may predispose a male towards anxiety disorders, a problem with parental attachment during Erikson’s 0-23 month stage can have a life changing effect and send him down a path of psychological adaptation to these unfortunate events by seeking attachment in a ‘father substitute’, or for a lesbian, a ‘mother substitute’.

The question then for us is, how do Christians behave towards SSA people?  Obviously further rejection of SSA people by Christians is going to feed in to the already existing perception of rejection; the constant accusations of homophobia and bigotry are merely the manifestation of the Rejection Meme writ large upon an uncaring society.  On the other hand, Christians have to be faithful to the Gospel – which means that we do not see same sex ‘marriage’ as being a solution to the gay person’s attachment issues.  Primarily we see marriage as something oriented towards providing children with a natural link with their biological parents, which I have spoken about previously here, and that changing the definition of marriage will have societal consequences which do not just affect people who are same-sex oriented.

Christians have another option altogether.  We think that same-sex attracted people can find ultimate fulfilment in Christ, who loves them with an all-encompassing love.  We would like to invite more gay people to get to know the person of Christ, because a living and active relationship with him is just that – living and active!  Christ is not just a historical figure, but a person who gets intimately involved in our lives, once we open the door to him.  If you are a lesbian who is somewhat repelled by involvement with males because of past abuse, get to know the Mother of Christ – she is the ultimate and ideal mother (Rev. 12:17) and I can personally attest that she has accompanied me gently and lovingly through many trials.  These things are not well explained theoretically, but if one opens one’s heart even the smallest amount to the possibility of relationship with God, the Holy Spirit will find a way in through the smallest of cracks and fill your soul with His illumination and love.  We also need to send a strong message to heterosexual Catholics: do not use insulting, demeaning or unloving language around SSA people.  This is a hard course to steer, because even the mere suggestion that a person with SSA might not be ‘born this way’ can trigger a strong emotional reaction and be perceived as a lack of acceptance.  I have discovered this through experience because there are people who now find it difficult to talk to me because of my strong views on this, and will do anything to stay in their comfort zone.

Lastly, I would like to let gay people in Australia know that we in the Catholic Church have an active support ministry for same-sex attracted people (Courage) and for their families and friends (EnCourage).  If you would like more information on either of these groups, please get in touch with me and I will refer you to the appropriate person.


6 Comments

Tell me again? How does my gay marriage affect you?

 

Jeremiah Michelangelo_Buonarroti

Jeremiah (detail), 1508-1512, Michelangelo Buonarotti, fresco, Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.

Heard these slogans?

Tell me again? How does my gay marriage affect  you?
OR
Don’t like my gay marriage? Don’t get one.

The activists who dream up these slogans are relying on people being either ignorant or credulous.  Fortunately the Australian public are cleverer than that, and there are plenty of examples showing how a redefinition of marriage might affect Australians.  In this post, I want to provide examples of the curtailments to freedom of speech and freedom of association that have arisen, either already in this country, or following the redefinition of marriage, in other countries.  There is still time for Australians to petition their members of parliament about the likely outcomes, whichever way the vote goes in the (so-called) plebiscite.

Despite all the claims, almost all discrimination in respect of same-sex couples has already been removed – in fact the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby themselves admit this in their Invited Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. 

where they say,

In 2008, the Federal Government made a commitment to ending same-sex relationship discrimination and amended 85 federal laws to recognise same-sex de facto couples [my bold]…

At a state and territory level, in the space of seven years (1999-2006), de facto recognition has expanded comprehensively to guarantee the rights of same-sex couples in state laws.  At the end of 2008, the Federal Government passed a series of reforms to largely mirror the recognition offered by states and territories. Same-sex couples were recognised in taxation, parenting, superannuation, veteran’s affairs, social security and immigration laws.  The effect of the reforms was to give same-sex couples the same rights, entitlements and responsibilities as heterosexual de facto couples.

(Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby All Love is Equal Submission 2012) 

We now need to look at what will happen to the rights of everyone who disagrees with changing the definition of marriage – particularly those who are committed to religious beliefs regarding the nature of marriage.  These particular areas are most likely to be affected if comprehensive religious freedoms are not protected by law – to all citizens, not just clergy:  Christians may be slapped with a court order or fined for refusing material cooperation with the new laws.  They may also be compelled to pay damages to individuals who feel offended, including their court costs.  They may be refused employment positions or lose accreditation because of their religious beliefs.  In the examples below, I will list some cases of infringements to religious liberty that have already occurred both overseas and in Australia, and I divide these into five subject headings: compelled association, compelled provision of benefits, speech punishment, de-accreditation and loss of employment, and removal of tax concessions.

  1.  COMPELLED ASSOCIATION

This includes situations such as government compulsion of religious bodies to retain as employees (or members), staff who – in direct conflict with ethics code of the organisation – take part in a same-sex ‘wedding’;   the compulsory provision of services to same-sex ‘couples’ by businesses involved in the provision of wedding-related or spousal-related goods and services, or the enforcement by the State of children attending classes in highly contentious gender ideology.

  • 2008.  Christian doctors, Dr Douglas Fenton and Dr Christine Brody, were found by the California State Supreme Court to have violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, when they refused to provide intrauterine insemination to a lesbian woman.
  • 2016.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled, in E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, that Steve Tourloukis could not remove his children from the radical sex education programs being conducted at their school.
  • 2013.  MP Alex Greenwich introduced a bill (which was ultimately unsuccessful) to remove the exemption in the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) which allows religious schools to engage staff with beliefs consistent with the values of the school.
  • 2014.  Donald and Evelyn Knapp, of The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, fell foul of the antidiscrimination ordinance of the City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho which stated that its purpose was ‘to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation based upon sexual orientation and gender identity/expression and providing that a violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanour punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 180 days or both.’  – and this fine was for each day they continued in their non-cooperation.  Their crime was to decline to perform same-sex weddings.
  • 2012.  A same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against Jack Phillips, of the Masterpiece Cake Shop, when he declined to make them a wedding cake.

An administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment. The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a “re-education” program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.  (Alliance Defending Freedom)

  • 2013.  Aaron and Melissa Klein, of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, declined to create a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and were ordered to pay restitution of $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.  Their company went out of business.
  • 2016.  Lorie Smith, of 303 Creative Graphic and Web Design, is a graphic designer who wants to be able to create work consistent with her core beliefs.  A ‘Colorado law would force her to create websites celebrating marriages that violate her deeply held religious beliefs if she creates websites celebrating one-man, one-woman marriages. The law even bars her from expressing her religious views about marriage on her website. ADF is filing a lawsuit on Lorie’s behalf asking a Colorado court to prevent government officials from enforcing the law against Lorie so she can run her business consistently with her faith without fear of government punishment.’  The Alliance Defending Freedom is proceeding with a pre-enforcement challenge to help Lorie obtain a ruling about whether she would be liable for the penalty of $500 per violation, including investigations and court costs, and mandated re-education programs, which the current law requires.
  • 2006.  Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, of Elane Photography, were asked by Vanessa Willock to film her same-sex wedding.  They declined.  Ms Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court ruled against the Huguenins.  They were fined nearly $7,000.
  • 2017.  72-year old Baronnelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Richland, Washington, is being sued by Washington State and the ACLU because she refused to make a wedding cake for the same-sex wedding of a long time customer, Rob Ingersoll.  In February 2017, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against her. She stands to lose in the region of a million dollars in her battle with the ACLU.
  • 2005.  Dr Neil Clark Warren’s online dating service, eHarmony, was sued by Eric McKinley of New Jersey, for failing to provide dating services to same-sex attracted men.  eHarmony agreed to pay restitution to McKinley of $5,000 plus a year’s free membership.  They were also required to restructure their business to include opportunities for same-sex dating and include pictures of same-sex couples on their website.  Further to this, eHarmony was sued in California by a lesbian woman, Linda Carlson, in 2007, for a similar reason.
  • 2006.  Catholic Charities of Boston MA, Catholic Charities of Rockford IL, closed down their adoption services due to the conflict between faithfulness to Church teaching and the requirements of State law.
  • 2005.  David and Tanya Parker of Lexington, MA, requested from their son’s school that they be notified when their 6-year old son was going to be exposed during class to homosexual curriculum materials.  David was arrested for trespass during a meeting with the principal and Director of Education.  He was held overnight in jail, and not given permission to call his lawyer.  The episode was followed by court appearances, vilification by LGBT activists and the non-resolution of his complaint.  In 2006, David’s son, Jacob, was surrounded at recess, and beaten and punched in a mass-assault by a group of children from the school.
  1. COMPELLED PROVISION OF BENEFITS

In this scenario, the government compels religious institutions to include same-sex ‘marriage’ partners in any schemes involving benefits to traditionally married couples.

  • Yeshiva University limits its married housing facilities to students who are married. In 2001, prior to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in New York State, the university was fined in Levin v. Yeshiva University for declining to provide Sara Levin and her partner accommodation in the housing reserved for married couples.
  1. PUNISHMENT FOR SPEECH

Merely expressing opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’, becomes punishable by law.  Public and private preaching, political activism or even conversation might be construed as ‘hate speech’, ‘harassment’ or ‘discrimination’.

  • 2014.  The Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, subpoenaed sermons which mentioned gender identity or homosexuality.
  • 2015.  Transgender advocate and Greens candidate, Martine Delaney, lodged a complaint with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, in respect of Archbishop Julian Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishops’ pastoral letter, Don’t Mess With Marriage.  She claimed that the material in the pamphlet contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas).  Ms Delaney subsequently withdrew her complaint, but not before a large amount of money and time had been spent preparing a defence.
  • 2016.  Four Spanish Bishops, Juan Antonio Reig Pla, Joaquín María López, José Rico Pavés and Demetrio Fernández are being threatened with prosecution by LGBT activists for criticising Madrid’s new law with the cumbersome name, Law of Integral Protection against LGRBIphobia and Discrimination for Reasons of Orientation and Sexual Identity.  The law attempts to prohibit speech concerning homosexuals and transsexuals which might be regarded as discriminatory or offensive.
  • 2016.  Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, Archbishop of Valencia, was charged under article 510 of the Penal Code for publicly fomenting hostility towards the LGBT movement, when he said, “We have legislation contrary to the family, the acts of political and social forces, to which are added movements and acts by the gay empire, by ideologies such as radical feminism, or the most insidious of all, gender ideology.”  The charges were later dismissed by the Superior Tribunal of Justice.
  1. DE-ACCREDITATION AND REMOVAL OF LICENSES; LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT OR BOARD POSITIONS

Members of professional associations and Businesses which do not acknowledge same-sex ‘marriage’ may have their accreditation revoked, or people who support traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage may lose their jobs or be subjected to vitriolic social media campaigns.

  • 2017.  IBM Managing Partner, Mark Allaby, was targeted because of his association with the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which provides internships to high achieving Christians pursuing careers in politics, law, journalism, research and the public service. A social media campaign involving a barrage of LGBT-lobby organised twitter messages, forced Mr Allaby off the board of the Australian Christian Lobby.  Mr Allaby was also forced to resign his position from the board of PwC (Price Waterhouse Coopers), following a social media campaign.
  • 2017.  The private Jewish Orthodox  Vishnitz Girls’ School, in Hackney, North London, is facing closure because of its refusal to teach radical gender theory, gender reassignment surgery and homosexual content to the young ladies who are aged between three and eight years old.  It has failed its Ofsted Inspection three times in the past two years – an inspection which compels compliance with the Equality Act 2010.  In England, schools which do not meet Ofsted Standards will be de-accredited as independent schools.
  • 2014.  Brendon Eich, the creator of the JavaScript programming language, and CEO of Mozilla Corporation, made a donation in support of the Californian anti-same-sex marriage law, Proposition 8.  Following a media firestorm, he resigned from his position with Mozilla in April 2014.
  • 2015.  Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochrane, was suspended without pay and ultimately fired, because of a book on Biblical morality that he had written for his men’s Bible Study group in his Baptist Church.
  • 2017.  Tim and Melanie Cooper, Directors of Coopers Brewery, following the release of the Bible Society’s ‘Keep it Light’ video in which their Beer was being drunk by two members of Parliament engaged in a friendly chat about the two sides of the same-sex marriage debate, eventually bowed to the over-the-top social media campaign to destroy their brand, and released a statement in support of ‘diversity and equality’.
  • According to Miranda Devine of The Daily Telegraph, ‘Christian employees of organisations which have signed up to the same sex marriage campaign, now feel frightened and intimidated at work. Some have anonymously contacted the ACL and Marriage Alliance and the few journalists they feel might take their concerns seriously. One Telstra employee says: “Even though I declined to attend the “Wear It Purple” Day meeting, I have since been re-sent the meeting invite by an Executive Director 6 times. The meeting invite says staff are “required” (not “optional”) attendees.”  One former Qantas pilot says: “What caused me to resign is the company’s… active campaigning for the redefinition of marriage. [There] was a cultural pressure to conform, from the internal media and company culture.  “We’d be sitting in our cockpit, and receive an email expecting something operational, only to find it was another email about the [LGBTIQ] agenda. We were bombarded with this stuff.  “We got at times 4 emails a week about it. I knew I had to go, because I didn’t belong there… People are so afraid of being shouted down as a bigot.”’
  • Twelve Catholic Adoption Agencies in England (including Catholic Care) have been forced to close down in England since the introduction of the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 2007, due to the commitment of Catholic Adoption Agencies to place children with heterosexual couples only.
  • 2012.  The group Christian Concern arranged to hold a conference titled, One Man, One Woman: Making the case for marriage for the good of society at a venue owned by The Law Society, the representative body for solicitors in the UK.  The Law Society subsequently cancelled the booking, citing ‘diversity policies’ as a reason.  A rescheduled booking with the QEII Conference Centre was also cancelled the day before the conference, for the same reason.  Christian Concern sued both parties for breach of contract, and an agreement was subsequently reached
  • 2012.  The Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, Aryeh Ralbag, was temporarily suspended from his position after signing a document that restated the orthodox Jewish position on homosexuality, calling on leaders to ‘guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their sexual inclinations’.
  • 2012.  Kuruvilla George, the Deputy Chief Psychiatrist was pressured to resign from his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, following his signing of a petition against same-sex marriage drafted by Doctors for the Family and signed by 170 doctors.  The petition stated that natural families were the most conducive to happiness for children and, citing numerous academic peer-reviewed research papers, suggested that families with same-sex parents were not ideal for raising children.
  • 2015.  A Catholic psychologist, Philip Pocock, was barred from practising in the ACT, even though no patients had complained against him.  Pocock had stated that sodomy and masturbation were acts that were distortions of sexuality.
  • 2015.  The Law Society of Upper Canada has refused the accreditation of Trinity Western University’s Law School, because the University insists that sexual intimacy should occur only within the bounds of heterosexual marriage.
  • 2017. The Catholic non-profit organisation tackling the effects of family breakdown, The Ruth Institute, has been targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a ‘hate group’, because of its teaching of Catholic Doctrine.  The inclusion of The Ruth Institute on the SPLC’s ‘hate map’, has prompted The Ruth Institute’s online payment provider, Vanco Payment Solutions, to withdraw their provision of services.
  • 2017.  Sydney doctor, Pansy Lai, was subjected to vicious social media attacks when she participated in an advertisement for the Marriage Coalition presenting the case for the no vote in the Australian plebiscite on the redefinition of marriage.  A petition facilitated by the leftist activist group, GetUp!,  to have Dr Lai deregistered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority gathered around 5,000 votes before it was pulled by GetUp!, after they realised they were damaging their own brand.
  1. EXCLUSION FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND TAX CONCESSIONS

Tax-free status and government funding or grants might be withdrawn from organisations which uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

  • The Evangelical Child and Family Agency in Illinois was at risk of closure due to the removal of State funding several years ago for agencies which refused to allocate adoptees to same sex couples; however, it seems they have had an alternate source of funds and still specify on their website that potential applicants must be male and female.
  • 2007.  The Methodist-run Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, lost its eligibility for a real estate tax exemption because it had declined permission for two lesbian couples to celebrate their civil unions at the Boardwalk Pavilion on their New Jersey property.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but I hope it gives a sufficient tour of the post-marriage-redefinition landscape to give legislators pause.

May the Holy Spirit in his mercy bless Australia with wisdom and a love of truth.  And may I not have to say with Jeremiah in today’s first reading,

I am a daily laughing-stock,
everybody’s butt.
Each time I speak the word, I have to howl
and proclaim: ‘Violence and ruin!’
The word of the Lord has meant for me
insult, derision, all day long.
I used to say, ‘I will not think about him,
I will not speak in his name anymore.’
Then there seemed to be a fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones.
(Jeremiah 20:7-9)

 

 

 

 


1 Comment

A Toolkit for Explaining the Christian View of Marriage

Peter Walks on Water Philipp Otto Runge

Peter Walks on Water, Philipp Otto Runge, 1806.

With the Marriage Plebiscite being distributed to all Australians on 12 September, and a count of the results being collected in November, it is crucial for Christians to understand and moreover, be able to explain to others, the reasons for their position on marriage.

Because Marriage is foundational to society, the government has agreed that the whole nation has a right and indeed a duty to provide feedback via a voluntary plebiscite on the proposal to allow same-sex “marriage”.

Many people find it difficult to articulate and defend their core beliefs on marriage, especially if they are on the “no” side, because the media are generally heavily in favour of the “yes” vote and the “no” case is not publicly being well made.  The problem with the way this issue is being discussed in Australia is that it is being defined as an “Equality” issue.  The assertion is made that same-sex attracted people are being discriminated against.  What I would like to do here, is reframe the issues at stake so that we can see more clearly the way to defend what most Christians instinctively know is right, but are not sure how to explain, especially when faced with angry and emotional others accusing us of being ‘haters’ or ‘spewing filth’ as I have seen in some online commentary.

The first thing we need to say is that this is not about hating people with same-sex attraction.  God loves all people and wants them to enter into a deeply fulfilling relationship with Him.  However, if we love God, we love Truth itself and therefore we need to seek the Truth about what Marriage is.

The second thing to say is that it’s no use discussing marriage with non-Christians by quoting the Bible.  Non-Christians do not regard the Bible as authoritative, so we need to find another area of common ground.  Fortunately, the Catholic Church has a very rich history of philosophy grounded in a respect for reason, so in my discussion below, I will not be talking about God, but about philosophical positions that both Christians and non-Christians can share.

Thirdly, we cannot possibly start this discussion without defining what Marriage is.  And it is when we look at this, that we discover that the “no” and “yes” cases have a fundamentally different way of looking at Marriage.  The problem with the “equality” argument, is that it doesn’t say exactly what we want to treat equally – or rather, it’s not marriage as a concept that it wants to treat equally, but rather self-defined and infinitely adjustable minority groups.  In the words of Ryan T. Anderson, Marriage Equality depends on Marriage Reality.  And Marriage Reality depends on describing Marriage correctly.  Essentially, there are two competing views on marriage, and I will describe them below.

The #1 View of Marriage.  In this worldview, marriage is that relationship which unites a mother and father with the children that their relationship produces.  Some 2,400 years ago, Aristotle said that we can analyse any community in terms of the ACTS that the community engages in, the GOODS that they seek, and the NORMS or COMMITMENTS that they live by.  Looking at marriage, we can see that there is one ACT engaged in by the husband and wife that defines their marriage.  This Act is grounded in the Anthropological truth that the bodies of men and women are complementary.  All of our bodily organs can function correctly on their own – the heart can beat on its own, the kidneys can filter the blood on their own, the eyes can see without recourse to another individual – but the sexual organs require input from another human being of the opposite sex to complete their function.  Together, the man and the woman form a one-flesh union.  And so complete is this union, that within the 24 hours following, a baby might be conceived and subsequently born nine months later.  So the GOODS produced as a result of the marriage are the children.  This is based in the biological truth that human reproduction requires both a man and a woman.  This tells us that the love-making Act that makes the marriage relationship marital, is also the life-giving act that produces the Goods that are the result of that union.  The act is not only unitive because of the love between the spouses, but also generative.  This then leads to the COMMITMENTS arising as a result of their Act – the Commitments to raising the children arising as a result of the love-making life-giving Act.  This is why spouses make commitments that are comprehensive both in time and in exclusivity and are declared as part of the marriage ceremony: “till death do us part”, “forsaking all others I take you to be my lawful wedded spouse”.  You don’t do that with your business partner or your flatmate.  Marital exclusivity is about the sexual act itself – it doesn’t include activities like who you can play tennis with or join a choir with.  These commitments are grounded in the social reality that children deserve both a mother and a father.  A large body of research data shows that the well-being of children in two-parent, intact families significantly exceeds that of children in single-parent families.  And research is increasingly showing that genetic differences between males and females are important for providing balance in child-rearing.  I’m not saying that same-sex attracted people are bad parents, but with the best will in the world, two dads or two mums do not replace a mum and a dad.

The #2 View of Marriage.  There’s a competing vision of marriage that sees it rather as an intense, emotional, romantic and care-giving relationship.  The determining factor is that of all your relationships, this one relationship is your most intense, your most romantic, your BFF par excellence, where you have an exchange of care-giving between the partners, who are not differentiated by sexual preference.  This view has as its motto “love is love”.  Everyone who does not subscribe to this view may be consequently regarded as a “hater” or a “homophobe”, despite the fact that any opinion on homosexuality is irrelevant to the #1 Vision of Marriage.

But the second definition of marriage can’t explain all the marital norms, i.e. the life-long commitment and the exclusivity – and it certainly can’t explain the history of marriage legislation over time.  If the second view is true, then why can’t someone just abandon the marriage when they fall out of love, or when someone more exciting or attractive comes along?  If the second view is true, then what is to prevent it being exclusive – why not have the occasional secret ‘fling’ for the sake of a few moments of ‘love’?  What is there to prevent this sort of relationship being monogamous – why not make it a throuple or allow polygamy?  Why not say, like the Mormon polygamist, “I love them all!”  There is nothing in the #2 definition of marriage which grounds the relationship in monogamy, exclusivity and permanency.

For this reason, I see the second view of marriage leading to the complete erosion of the concept of marriage over time, as those things that currently make marriage special (monogamy, exclusivity and permanency) would become irrelevant.  Of course, it is only the sexual revolution of the 1960s that has made the #2 view of marriage possible – with easy contraception eroding the link between the unitive and generative aspects of marriage and leading to the hook-up culture with its consequent explosion of non-marital childbearing, and no-fault divorce eroding all three pillars of marriage: monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.  So it’s no surprise that some people come to the conclusion that sexual preference is no big deal either.  The subtext of the marriage debate is that heterosexual people have made such a mess of marriage that there is no reason any more to restrict access to marriage across a wider spectrum.

Neither does the second definition of marriage explain why the State takes an interest in marriage.  Obviously the State has an interest in creating a stable society.  And stable societies are made up of smaller units of families.  When families are dysfunctional, everybody is affected.  With a decreased commitment to the traditional understanding of marriage and family, there will be an associated increase in anti-social behaviour, depression, anxiety and other mental-health disorders, and diminished societal cohesion.  There is no reason for the State to have any interest in people’s personal love lives, apart from the fact that the State is interested in the welfare of children, since neglected, abandoned, dysfunctional, depressed and anxious children are a burden on the State.

I haven’t yet addressed the other flow-ons from the re-definition of marriage – limits to freedom of speech and freedom of association, as well as persecution for sincerely held religious beliefs, but will return to them in the coming weeks, along with a discussion of why this is not an “Equality” issue.

I would just like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Michael Quinlan, from whose work I have borrowed heavily.

In the meantime, here is a copy of a Facebook conversation I conducted with a friend of a friend, to assist you in having your arguments ready to defend the Catholic position.

Facebook-discussion

Further reading and watching:

 

 


Leave a comment

Raising Mentally Healthy Children with Melinda Tankard Reist

Melinda-Tankard-Reist-20170804_190843

Melinda Tankard Reist speaking at St Stephen’s School, Duncraig, Western Australia on 4 August 2017. Photo: Deirdre Fleming

If these facts about our children don’t give you pause, then you’re not paying attention.

  • More than a quarter of 16-24 year olds have a mental disorder.
  • One in sixteen of 16-24 year olds have depression.
  • One in six have an anxiety disorder.
  • There has been a 90% increase in older adolescent self –harm (mostly girls, but some boys) in the last 10 years – cutting themselves, pulling out hair, pulling out eyelashes, pulling out eyebrows.
  • There has been a 60% increase in 12 to 14-year-olds hospitalised as a result of self-harm between 1996 and 2006. (Patrick Parkinson, Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People, 2011, Vos Foundation)
  • One in 100 adolescent girls are anorexic.
  • One in ten girls are bulimic.
  • One in four teenage girls wants to have plastic surgery, mostly breast implants,  with a 50% increase in girls between 15-23 wanting labiaplasty or genital surgery (when there is nothing wrong with them).
  • Among boys, body image dissatisfaction for Western men has tripled in the past 25 years.
  • Up to a quarter of people suffering from anorexia nervosa or bulimia are male, and almost equal numbers of males and females suffer from binge eating disorders.
  • A ‘reverse anorexia’ condition is occurring among men who are dissatisfied with their body image: body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), also called bigorexia, or muscle dysmorphia. In their quest for cheap, muscle-building steroids, these men often travel overseas, but don’t come back alive.

These were just some of the introductory points made by Melinda Tankard Reist, author and media commentator, at a presentation she gave last Friday at St Stephen’s School, Duncraig.  A passionate defender of our children’s right to be children, Tankard Reist links our culture’s obsession with sex with the dysfunctional behaviours now becoming common among our youth.  Drawing our attention to the sexualisation of our culture, she took us through a visual tour of the porn-invaded advertising and industry landscape.  Who hasn’t heard of high-heeled shoes for babies, children’s shirts that say “SL_T, all I need is U”, Trashwhore shorts, Playboy baby clothes (with front-and-centre statements like “Future Player: Lock up your daughters” and “Future Playmate” on their baby onesies), and the not-to-be-missed Cotton On/Typo “Porn is my Saviour” mugs?

Boys, in particular, are at risk from the pornification of the internet, and are exposed to a myriad of sexualised images from advertisers seeking to groom them for a life addicted to their products.  Some advertisers have even cleverly linked the pop-ups featuring their sex-products to common spelling mistakes made by children when searching the internet for completely unrelated material.  Tankard Reist points out that the male brain is not fully developed until age 25 to 30, and that this oversaturation with sexualised images distorts the perception among teenage boys who think that porn presents what is normal.

It has been demonstrated elsewhere, that porn addiction has serious implications for the happiness of both men and women in later life, with porn-addicted men no longer being able to have normal sexual relations with their wives – resulting in an associated increase in treatments for impotence.

Melinda Tankard Reist 20170804_203120

Melinda Tankard Reist in conversation at St Stephen’s School, Duncraig, Western Australia. Photo: Deirdre Fleming

At schools across the country, Tankard Reist is busy engaging children and teenagers in conversation about issues such as teenage self-perception.  Crucial to the discussion is whether the young person understands that they are so much more than just their physical appearance.  Tankard Reist encourages parents to develop in their children a wider sense of their own value, and praise their children for things other than their appearance in order to help them develop a well-rounded view of themselves as people with intelligence, people of faith, with the ability to love unselfishly, and possessing virtues like kindness and self-control.   She helps young women to navigate ways of answering the question, “How do I say no without hurting his feelings?”

Her organisation, Collective Shout, has been instrumental in achieving a number of wins for children. Zoo magazine, the ‘rape manual for boys’, was removed from sale at Coles, and subsequently went out of production, while Grand Theft Auto V, a video game in which you can earn health points by sexually abusing and murdering women, has been withdrawn from sale at Kmart and Target.  Another  campaign resulted in the removal of billboards advertising local brothels, previously positioned overlooking the playground of a Brisbane boys’ school with the obvious intention of grooming future customers.

Melinda was also one of the first to expose the porn sites connected to the Safe Schools Program.  Ostensibly anti-bullying, Safe Schools was developed by Roz Ward, a Marxist LGBTI activist, and former lecturer at La Trobe University (she has now been booted out for alleged misconduct).  More and more people are coming to see the Safe Schools program for what it is, an attempt to sexualise and confuse our children about their bodies and challenge ‘heteronormativity’, at an age when this is the last thing they should be thinking about.  I recommend everyone read Miranda Devine’s article in the Daily Telegraph, critiquing the Marxist agenda of deconstructing the family.  The alternate universe of LGBTI activists sees the traditional family not as the core of a socially cohesive nation, but as something from which we should be liberated.

To smooth the operation of capitalism the ruling class has benefited … from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia (which) serve to break the spirits of ordinary people (and make us) feel like we should live in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for people in those units. (Roz Ward)

Ms Ward is quoted in The Australian as saying:

It’s more like 40-50 per cent of young people who are not ­exclusively attracted to the opposit­e sex.  That’s how fluid sexuality is headed.

I will have more to say about the (so-called) Safe Schools program in a future post, so stay tuned.

There is much that we as Catholic parents can do to help our children.  We can teach them their value in God’s eyes – their dignity as humans created in God’s plan, with a particular vocation and purpose in this life, one which it is our sacred duty to discover and cooperate with, if we want to live a life of joy and abundance.  Instead of teaching them that most malleable of words, ‘values’ (HT Iain Benson), let’s teach them actual virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, faith, hope and love.  At the same time, let’s draw their attention to the seven deadly sins, so they can know what not to aim at: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth.  Let’s teach them to pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord), and to be able to demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  When my children were still living under my roof, we prayed for these things every night and they memorised the lists, and although they’re not perfect (but who is?), I can see the fruit in their lives today.  For our culture and for your children’s present and future happiness, keep the faith.

Further reading and listening:


Leave a comment

29th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A | On the right relationship between religion and politics

How are we to understand the right relationship between religion and politics?  This Sunday’s readings address that question.

Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?

Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?  Downloaded from http://www.lds.org 

Download Word format: Year A 29th Sunday

Download Pdf format: Year A 29th Sunday

Listen to Fr Robert Barron’s explanation here: Click-here-to-listen

And go here for a Scripture Study on today’s readings by John Kincaid, Professor of Theology at John Paul the Great Catholic University.

Good democracies rely on understanding this relationship correctly.  As an example, look at the logical inconsistencies in Barack Obama’s views on abortion, compared to, say, his views on slavery: